Which type of harm must be foreseeable for a breach of duty to be established?

To establish a breach of duty in a legal context, it is crucial to demonstrate that the harm resulting from the breach is both actual and proximate. Actual harm refers to the real damage or injury that has occurred, while proximate harm relates to the direct relationship between the breach of duty and the harm suffered by the victim. This means that the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

In legal terms, not only must the harm be real, but it must also arise as a natural result of the breach, meaning it should have been predictable that such harm could occur from the behavior in question. This principle is foundational in tort law, where it is necessary to establish a clear link between the negligent act and the injury incurred.

The other types of harm listed do not encompass this critical requirement of foreseeability in proving a breach of duty. Permanent harm, unintentional harm, and minor harm do not specifically address the legal necessities of actual and proximate harm needed to substantiate a claim.